Posts tagged with "Mic Patterson":

For Seattle's AEC professionals, the city's thriving high-tech industry is both a blessing and a challenge. "The architecture scene in Seattle is red hot and exciting," said Mic Patterson, vice president of Strategic Development for Enclos.
"The migration of tech and related companies into the area is driving a new wave of architectural expression in which the building skin is playing a role." Next month, Patterson co-chairs Facades+AM Seattle, a half-day version of the acclaimed Facades+ conference series, with Perkins+Will senior project designer Carsten Stinn.
But while the influx of capital and design-minded entrepreneurs presents an unparalleled opportunity for architectural experimentation, Seattle-area architects, engineers, fabricators, and builders, may have some catching up to do when it comes to the technical side of the building envelope. "There is a long history of great architecture in Seattle, yet the advanced facade systems are relatively new to the area, and there are many in the local design and construction scene unfamiliar with the technology," observed Patterson. "In fact, the pace of development of facade technology has accelerated to the point that keeping up takes a deliberate effort, even by the experts, or they won't be experts for long."
"Our Facades+AM event will throw some of this up for a quick but deep dialogue that will provide equal parts information and inspiration," promised Patterson. The morning's agenda is divided into three case study-based presentations punctuated by networking breaks. Jeffrey Vaglio (Enclos) and Joshua Zabel (Kreysler & Associates) will follow Patterson and Stinn's opening remarks with "Digital Collaborations: Applications, Realities, and Opportunities in the Delivery of Complex Facades."
The second presentation, by energy strategist consultant Sangeetha Divakar and Morrison Hershfield's Stéphane Hoffman, is "Combined Modeling Efforts for the Optimized Facade: Models, Methods, Materials." The final offering, from Devin Kleiner (Perkins+Will) and Peter Alspach (Arup), is "Aspirations vs. Reality: Analysis of Built Projects." Additional speakers are being added to the program.
To learn more or join the Seattle dialogue, visit the Facades+AM Seattle website today.

In an environment of escalating demands and expectations for high-performance building envelopes, the need for innovative responses from AEC professionals is ever increasing. But as new building materials, fabrication techniques, and design technologies ceaselessly emerge into the marketplace, the architectural possibilities become dizzying.
At Facades+ PERFORMANCE, the nation's premiere conference for high-performance facades, we strive to keep you up to date with the latest strategies and tools that are revolutionizing the built environment. Join us for two days of cutting edge workshops, panels, and symposia presented by the industry’s leading innovators, and become part of the movement that is transforming the built environment.
Be there as Mic Patterson of Enclos is joined by Keith Boswell and Anwar Hakim of SOM to discuss the process of innovation and the application of emerging building technologies in their afternoon dialog-workshop, “Innovation and The Building Skin.” Space is limited, so reserve your seat today to take part in this and other exciting programs at AN and Enclos’ Facades+ PERFORMANCE, coming to Chicago, October 24th-25th!
"Innovation is no accident," said Patterson in a statement, "it is a creative act requiring discipline, deliberation, and strategic planning; the key is learning to implement and manage the process of innovation." With decades' worth of experience in the study and promotion of the design, fabrication and instillation of advanced facade technologies and structural glass facades, Patterson has dedicated his career to realizing the future of the building skin. After founding ASI Advanced Structures in 1991 and pioneering the use advanced facade technologies in the US, Patterson joined up with Enclos in 2007 when they acquired ASI. He has since worked to establish the Advanced Technology Studio of Enclos in Los Angeles, a think-tank tasked with developing innovative technical and structural solutions to match the ever expanding geometric complexity and performative demands placed upon today's most dynamic facades.
"Today's building programs involve unprecedented demands on the building skin, demands that are driving step-change in facade systems and technology. Innovation is the necessary industry response to these drivers of change. When I consider the current crop of projects we are involved with I am struck by how different they are from the work we were doing five, or even three years ago. Recognizing these differences highlights the trends that are shaping the future of our industry."
Join Mic Patterson has he discusses his experience delivering elegant, economic, high-performance facades amidst the revolution of formal complexity and material diversity that is transforming the AEC industries, and learn the tools to necessary to compete on the crest of innovation. Register today to take part in this and other exciting workshops, panels, and symposia, offered only at Facades+ PERFORMANCE!

Glass-clad, cable-net structures are one of today's leading forms of high-transparency facade technology. Since 2009, Enclos has been an authority in the design, engineering, fabrication, and assembly of custom curtain wall systems and structural glass facades. The company has published a number of reports about building skin systems. Volume 1: Skylights of the Facade TecNotes Series focuses on glass in overhead applications and the unique opportunities it brings. On September 11th, Enclos’ Mic Patterson will join AN to discuss glass facades at GlassBuild America: The Architects Forum in Atlanta. Mr. Patterson will share several examples that show how optimal transparency and aesthetic elegance can work together. He will discuss projects such as 51 Louisiana in Washington, D.C., two existing buildings that have been joined by a glass-clad atrium, and Station Place: Security & Exchange Commission Headquarters, also in Washington, D.C., which consists of a 55-foot-long and 60-foot-wide skylight. Mr. Patterson has lectured internationally on various aspects of advanced facade technology and is the author of Structural Glass Facades and Enclosures.

Tex-Fab has concluded the initial stage of its international competition called SKIN. The two-stage competition invited architects, designers, and researchers to rethink the traditional building envelope by exploring the performative qualities of a facade. Participants selected any context, real or virtual, at any scale and on any building type. Phase one jurors narrowed down 68 entries from across the world to four finalists and four honorable mentions.
Jurors Phil Anzalone, Maria Mingallon, Gregg Pasquarelli, Randy Stratman, and Skylar Tibbits conferred on July 9th and initially selected 14 entries to discuss. Varying in type and method, the entries depicted a diverse display of ideas and work, compelling the jury to choose four finalists and four honorable mentions. Finalists includeProject 2XmT by Christopher Romero and Nicholas Bruscia, Cellular Complexity by Kais Al-Rawi, Julia Koerner, and Marie Boltenstern, Robot Assisted Sheet Metal Fabrication by Lik Hang Gu, Nathan Shobe, and Qi Su, and Sense by Isak Worre Foged and ANke Pasold.
The first of the finalists, Project 2XmT, has a visibly developed working model and reveals the dramatic impact from various viewpoints created by small undulations or shifting panels. Juror Skylar Tibbits commented that “it’s the one most in line with the brief.” The next finalist, Cellular Complexity, has an appealing formal potential that tests the limits of architecture. Juror Phillip Anzalone remarked, “If it’s truly developed 3-dimensionally that would be fantastic.” Robotic Assisted Sheet Metal Fabrication was chosen as a finalist in context with the project per-Forming (HM), which received honorable mention, as both interacted with metal forming in distinctive, yet complimentary aspects. Juror Maria Mingallon trusts that “this one could really push the boundaries of TEX-FAB and could add to the exhibition at ACADIA." The last finalist, Sense, is simple with potential to be very dynamic. Tibbits remarked “it’s a known phenomena that could produce some exciting effects."
Honorable mentions include Organized Crime by Kyle Miller, Evaporative Folding by Jeana Ripple, Hydromorph by Camden Greenlee and Brian Vesely, and per-FORMING by Jake Newsum and Ammar Kalo.
The phase two jury includes Michele Addington, James Carpenter, Neil Denari, Mic Patterson, and William Zahner. Moving onto the second round, the four finalists will use $1000 stipends to develop prototypes of their projects, which will be installed at the ACADIA Adaptive Architecture Conference at the University of Waterloo in October 2013. At that time, the jurors will select a winner whose scheme will be assembled in full scale for the TEX-FAB 4.0 conference.

This is second of a two part interview of Ken Yeang one of the earliest thinkers and designers in the field of sustainable architecture. The interview was conducted by Mic Patterson of Enclos who will be introducing Yeang at The Architect’s Newspaper’s Facades+PERFORMANCE conference on July 11 in San Francisco.
Mic Patterson: Your work clearly demonstrates that concepts of bioclimatic design are readily scalable from the residence to the skyscraper to the urban environment. How do the considerations of bioclimatic design apply at the scale of building subassembly or the the building skin?
Ken Yeang: At the sub-assembly level, we have developed devices such as the 'raincheck' wall being a glazing façade system that lets in ventilation but keeps out rain. Another device we are working on is a 'solar chimney' that uses a double-glazed glass-shaft to naturally ventilate internal spaces.
MP: Many of your designs include an expansive use of glass, often a challenge with respect to solar control and energy performance. What are the considerations for glass use in your bioclimatic design process.
KY: It sounds facile, but giving joy and happiness to occupants is an essential aspect of why we are architects. Much of our work is about "enabling users' dreams come true" by design. One way to give spaces a feeling of cheerfulness is the enabling the simple enjoyment of daylight as it enters a space or as it brightens up a space in the morning – which the use of glass combined with façade design and roof-light devices can achieve. In addition solar control can be achieved with various solar shading systems. Enhanced energy performance can be mitigate using double glazing or 'low-e' glass.Finally we cannot overlook the opportunity to look out from the inside, to create vistas are aspects that glass enables.
MP: What are the predominant drivers of your design process beyond climate and ecology?
KY: Our overarching objective to advance the field of ecodesign and ecomasterplanning. The first driver is a committed pursuit of innovation and invention in the advancement of this field of endeavour. Discovering a new idea (the 'eureka' moment) is the buzz in what we do. We see innovation not just at the level of 'product' but at 'processes' (the way things are done) and at the level of 'premises' (the principles or theory of why things are done). Everyday in every project, we are searching for ways to innovate. This can be achieved at various levels and at product, process and premises (e.g. at the level of architecture, at the level of urban design and master planning, at the macro level of economics, business and industry, at the micro level of subassembly, etc.). The second driver is aesthetics being the pursuit of an 'ecoaesthetic' – essentially asking, "what does an ecodesign or ecoarchitecure or an ecomasterplan look like?" I believe that ecodesign deserves its own aesthetic that It should look like a 'living system'. We are always asking ourselves, what should a 'constructed ecosystem' look like?

Ken Yeang is an architect and was an early theorist of green architecture. In England, where he was educated at the AA (completing a diploma under Peter Cook) and Cambridge where he earned a PhD in ecological planning and design, Yeang is celebrated as a founder of the sustainable architecture movement. In 1995 he published his major theoretical work Designing with Nature that evolved out his Cambridge thesis and it is one of the first texts on ecological architecture. At the The Architect’s Newspaper’s Facades+PERFORMANCE conference on July 11, Yeang will lecture in the US for the first time at the University of California San Francisco in Mission Bay. Yeang recently answered a series of questions posed by Mic Patterson of Enclos who will introduce him in San Francisco. Here is part one of the interview, the second half will appear tomorrow on the AN Blog.
Mic Patterson Your early theoretical work, and ultimately your built work, anticipated the sustainable development that is finally beginning to emerge at a broader scale: climatic design, green walls and vertical gardens, sky courts, biomimicry, solar geometry as a form generator. Why has the adoption of these concepts by the building community been so slow? How do you see these themes developing into the future?
Ken Yeang. I am not sure why our concepts and ideas on green design have been slow to gain traction by the building industry and by our community of professionals. It may be because public adoption of new ideas first require champions by important figures like politicians and leaders in the profession and industry.
I started work in this field in 1971—it was the topic of my PhD dissertation at Cambridge. It took a while for leading politicians and professionals and others in the building industry to champion sustainable design, probably around the late 1990's. Sustainable issues are essentially ethical issues and because these do not have immediate commercial impacts, often no action is taken until a disaster brings them to the forefront.
With regard to how I see these themes developing in the future, my view is that green design is still in its infancy. There is there is still so much more to be done and this will continue to progress in the future. There is much more theoretical, technical and design interpretation work to be accomplished. For instance with bioclimatic design, there are many bioclimatic systems for different climatic zones that need to be developed and tested (e.g. evaporative cooling systems at non-commonly adopted climatic zones, work to advance the technology of the Trombe walls, low-energy flue-wall or flue-atrium type of natural ventilation systems, climate-responsive facades responding to different seasons of the year and at different climatic zones, etc.)
With green walls, many of the current systems are essentially hydroponic systems. We need self-sustaining green wall systems that are not hydroponic, and green wall systems that enable a greater range of native species to be used. With vertical gardens, we need advancement of systems of vertical integration. We need to find ways to bring daylight to the vegetation at the inner depths of vertical gardens. Finally we need to design vertical gardens that can survive through all seasons of the year especially in cold and temperate climates, and devices to enable them to withstand high wind speeds at the upper parts of buildings, etc.
Further studies need to be done on skycourt typologies, further studies on how these can be better integrated with vertical landscaping and sky-parks while maintaining an ecological nexus with the landscape at the ground plane. We also need studies on how these as public 'places-in-the-sky' can be beneficial and integral with the social lives of high–rise inhabitants, etc. “Biomimicry” is of less interest to me whereas I regard “ecomimicry,” where design imitates the properties and attributes of ecosystems to be more relevant to green design. I did research work on biomimicry in 1972 when I wrote a number of papers (published in AD and in AAQ [Architectural Association Quarterly] on 'bionics' and on the use of biological analogies for design. These led me to conclude that for ecological design, ecomimicry is more directly relevant to green design than biomimicry.
While LEED has encouraged and enabled many professionals to be involved with green design and had been immensely successful in proselytizing green design to a wide public audience, it is an incomplete system and not environmentally comprehensive. What differentiates our work from other green architects is its authentic ecological basis for design. This is more relevant as it is fundamentally premised on ecology and environmental biology. We see this as the focus of the next generation of green design.
MP: The bioclimatic skyscraper is a compelling notion for a sustainable tall building, yet many feel that, while tall buildings may facilitate density, they are a fundamentally unsustainable building type. Do you feel, for example, that net-zero operational energy performance of a tall building is practically achievable on a widespread basis?
KY: It is necessary to appreciate that “bioclimatic design'”is essentially “passive-mode low energy design” and “mixed-mode low energy design.” “Passive-mode low energy design” is designing (eg. built form configuration, facade design for solar protection, use of bioclimatic devices,etc.) to respond to the climatic conditions of the site while optimizing the ambient energies of the locality to result in a built form that is passively low energy without the use of any mechanical and electrical systems.
Whereas “mixed-mode low energy design” is designing in relation to the climate of the site optimizing the ambient energies of the locality to result in a built form that has a partial use of M&E systems.
Bioclimatic design is only the first step in ecological design. It is a subset of ecological design, and provides the basic armature for ecodesign, following which other aspects of ecological design can be incorporated holistically with the built form. In this regard, the 'bioclimatic skyscraper' is not a sustainable design per se but only a partially sustainable design, where other aspects of sustainable design (e.g. water management, carbon neutrality, biodiversity, etc.) need to be subsequently taken into account.
Yes, most tall buildings are fundamentally unsustainable buildings unless located over transportation hubs. This is because the tall building utilizes around 30% or more energy, materials and engineering systems to build, operate, reuse, recycle and to demolish. We should not build tall unless we have to. My rationale for looking into this building type is that the tall building type is a builtform that will not go away overnight. It exists for many prevailing urban and land economic reasons.
If this built form shall be with us for a while, my contention is that we should not negate them but on the contrary seek to find ways to make them more humane to inhabit and find ways to make them as green as possible. If all the green designers of the world negate this built form, then who will make them as green or pleasurable to inhabit as possible? The net-zero operational energy performance of a tall building can in principle be practically achievable but it will be dependent upon the level of internal comfort conditions acceptable to dwellers.
MP: Do your theories of eco-architecture and bioclimatic design translate easily to climatic zones outside of the tropics? What would a bioclimatic skyscraper look like in San Francisco?
KY: What an odd question? Certainly the theories of eco-architecture and bioclimatic design are generic and are applicable to all climatic zones—not just in the tropics. However we must be clear that ecoarchitecture and bioclimatic solutions are site specific. What is effective for one locality and for that latitude, climate conditions and local ecology cannot be applicable to other latitudes, other climatic conditions and other local ecological conditions.
Nevertheless, the principles (being generic) of ecoarchitecture and the principles of bioclimatic (as a building science basis for architectural design) remain applicable to any climatic and ecological locality of the planet. What will differ are the design responses to the different climatic conditions.
However the design interpretation and application of these principles for each location (latitude and climatic conditions) will be different.
To your question, “What would a bioclimatic skyscraper look like in San Francisco?,” the answer is that it will look totally different from a bioclimatic skyscraper in the tropics. Most likely a bioclimatic skyscraper in San Francisco will have a variable facade that will enable it to be operable for different seasons of the year. Likely we can make us of the “natural buoyancy” in the San Francisco climate in the mid season spring and autumn) as a “flue façade wall” or “flue atrium” for natural ventilation to create a low energy built form or atrium. These can create a totally different aesthetic for a San Francisco bioclimatic skyscraper than a bioclimatic skyscraper in the tropics.
MP: Are there emerging building materials or technology that your are excited about, the hold the potential to facilitate the transformation of the built environment toward a sustainable future?
KY: Yes, there are many emerging building materials or technologies that are exciting that hold great potential to facilitate the transformation of the built environment toward a sustainable future—such as the use of nanotechnologies in materials and facade coatings, in future PV cells that imitate photosynthesis, in use of “cloud computing” in building automation systems, in climate responsive façade systems, in low energy carbon neutral environmental systems, etc.

Some estimates indicate up to 70 percent of existing building stock is in need of major renovation. Get hip to the latest trends and techniques in facade retrofit at the Facades+PERFORMANCE Conference taking place in New York City next week. Come explore the emerging technology and recent applications in the daylong workshop, Facade Retrofit: The Challenge and Opportunity Presented by an Aging Building Stock, moderated by Mic Patterson, Director of Strategic Development at Enclos.
What better place to explore this topic than Manhattan, surrounded by aging buildings badly in need of facade renovation both to improve performance and appearance. But these buildings and their facades present unique challenges. This full-day workshop will delve deeply into the various issues comprising the renovation of large commercial facades in the urban environment, particularly the retrofit of old curtainwall facades, and also the use of contemporary curtainwall technology to renovate old masonry buildings. A team of local experts will first establish context by defining the scope of the problem, then follow with a discussion of design strategies, and means and methods for implementing facade retrofit projects. A series of exemplary case studies will be presented, among them will be the recently completed recladding of the Javits Convention Center. The workshop program will conclude with a mid afternoon tour of the Jacob Javits Convention Center.
Speakers from: CUNY, Davis Brody Bond Architects, Gensler, Halsall Associates, Mitchell/Giurgola Architects, RA Heintges and Associates, SHoP Architects, Structuretone.
Register here.